Interview Notes from HACC Judge Candidate Interviews — Week Three

TI Ukraine continues to monitor interviews in the competition for positions at the High Anti-Corruption Court. 

During the third week, the following candidates completed this stage of the competition:

• Ihor Omelian
• Viktoriia Kytsiuk
• Vitalii Dubas
• Oleksii Yevtushenko 
• Lesia Skreklia
• Nataliia Makhno
• Oleksandr Vernyhor
• Ihor Nikitchuk
• Oleh Khamkhodera
• Mykola Pika 
• Tetiana Troian 
• Kostiantyn Kharakoz 
• Volodymyr Bubleinyk 
• Yuliia Retynska 
• Serhii Syvokin

This piece highlights key points from interviews held March 2–6.

Ihor Omelian

Lecturer, International European University

PCIE and HQCJ focused most heavily on a series of companies that the candidate had served as a director or founder of and that appeared to be set up under suspicious circumstances. TI Ukraine’s prior review found that in 2020–2021 Omelian served as director of six LLCs with foreign founders—suggesting the companies were used to obtain residence permits for foreigners outside the standard procedure. None of the companies opened bank accounts, conducted business activities, or had staff other than the candidate as director. The entities were also registered, without a clear basis, at the candidate’s apartment.

Omelian said he met these foreigners through a colleague who asked him to provide legal assistance. He ultimately confirmed that the companies were created for residence permits and that the foreigners said they “wanted to live in Ukraine and saw their business in Ukraine,” while adding that the procedure was lawful. Asked directly whether he understood the companies were not created to conduct real business, Omelian answered differently, saying the foreigners liked Ukrainian food and people, and that after moving to another country, they did not like it there. He concluded by saying he does not engage in fictitious company creation.

TI Ukraine also established that the candidate was a co-founder of PODIL AGRO INVEST LLC (charter capital UAH 4.2 billion, of which UAH 1.4 billion was in the candidate’s name) and SEA INVESTMENT GROUP LLC (charter capital UAH 560 million, of which UAH 140 million was in the candidate’s name). The panel asked how “innovative models” could have been valued by the owners at such extraordinary sums and what, specifically, made them innovative.

At first, the candidate responded in general terms, saying that “implementing them could bring the results described in the feasibility studies for those projects.” One idea, he said, concerned building an LNG terminal at a port—something that no one ever built. Another concerned using agricultural enterprises to grow export products. He said the projects failed, and that he later exited the business voluntarily, stating he had no claims regarding his billion-hryvnia stakes. Omelian was unable to explain what intellectual contribution he personally made to the purported know-how.

PCIE asked directly whether the company could have been used for money laundering or fraud—particularly because the names of these companies appear in criminal proceedings involving fraud and money laundering. Omelian responded that to do that “you would need to have money,” and he said the companies did not.

During the interview, the candidate tried to underscore his integrity. He said he could have avoided declaring a piece of property because “if I hadn’t listed it, no one would even know, because it isn’t even in the registry.” He said something similar about a repayable financial assistance (a loan) he received from his own law office: “I could have not declared it (the income—ed.), and the commission would have had no way of knowing, nor would any outside observer.”

Regarding these “loans from himself to himself,” the candidate said they were not a way to avoid paying dividends tax. Instead, he said, during a period when banks were closing he wanted to protect his money: in liquidation, he claimed, funds belonging to legal entities are paid out last, while individuals are paid first and in full.

HQCJ also questioned the candidate about his primary job since 2024 as a university lecturer. It emerged that some of the courses he teaches are not law-related, even though he has only a law degree and no academic title. Omelian explained that he took up teaching because his law office income was unstable and he wanted to understand whether he should pursue a PhD. He said he found the teaching vacancy, which provides a deferment from mobilization, through targeted advertising.

Vitalii Dubas

HACC Judge

The panel asked Dubas about the controversy surrounding the criminal case involving suspected former deputy chair of the High Commercial Court, Artur Yemelianov. In that matter, Investigating Judge Dubas returned the prosecutor’s motion for an interim measure, because he believed the case fell under the jurisdiction not of HACC but of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv. The HACC Appeals Chamber later overturned that decision and kept the case under HACC jurisdiction. Dubas said the Appeals Chamber should not have considered the matter at all, because the court of first instance was not the Anti-Corruption Court but a local court.

Dubas said he had made similar rulings before, but this case was particularly high-profile, which ultimately led to interference in his work. He noted that the HACC Appeals Chamber had previously held that the case belonged to HACC, but he disagreed with that approach and, among other things, unsuccessfully sought recusal on that basis. 

PCIE asked whether the situation nonetheless allowed him to recuse himself. Dubas replied that every judge has the right to their own legal position and that the correctness of that position is tested through judicial review, adding: “If I issued the decision, I’m ready to be accountable for it.”

A separate topic was that the judge is a blood donor and donates on workdays. Dubas said he donates about once a month. The discussion concerned a situation where he tried to take the days off provided by law, but the court chair allegedly refused, creating an apparent conflict. Dubas said that on those days he typically continues administering justice and then “adds” the days off, for example, to a vacation period. 

The interview also examined an episode in which two of the three judges on a panel (other than Dubas) issued separate opinions. This was discussed from the standpoint of teamwork. Dubas said he has extensive experience working on judicial panels and that this was the only such situation. 

The panel also discussed his use of full access to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. Part of that topic was considered in a closed session. In the open session, asked why he searched the register for his own surname, Dubas said he was reviewing appellate decisions addressing appeals of his rulings.

The interview also touched on judges’ behavior in court hearings that had been discussed on social media. Dubas said he believes that when a judge behaves like a real person, rather than “a person in a case,” it can increase public trust in the court.

Viktoriia Kytsiuk

Judge, Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv

This interview largely revisited issues that had already been examined during Kytsiuk’s first participation in the HACC competition in 2018–2019. She was eliminated after a joint session of HQCJ and PCIE. The grounds were, among other things, social media posts criticizing NABU, and an episode involving an “error correction” that in practice narrowed the substance of an earlier ruling.

The key question this time was what, specifically, had changed since the previous competition and why HQCJ and PCIE should reach a different conclusion now. Kytsiuk emphasized that she should be assessed as of the present, referring to the Supreme Court’s position that integrity criteria involve a degree of subjectivity, and said she was prepared to provide explanations.

Regarding the Facebook posts, she said she had drawn conclusions from that situation and would act differently today. Kytsiuk stressed that her repost occurred after her judicial term had already ended, so she was not commenting on a matter pending before her. As for the “error correction,” she emphasized that the appellate court overturned the decision for procedural reasons—specifically, the failure to notify the pretrial investigation authority, which effectively deprived it of an opportunity to provide explanations. However, she noted that the appellate court did not find that the underlying decision had been substantively narrowed, and she focused her explanations on that point.

The interview also addressed Kytsiuk’s transfer to a court in Kyiv in 2013. A PCIE member raised the question of whether the transfer was carried out through a genuine competitive procedure, as required by law. At the time, a judge appointed for an initial five-year term could be transferred only through a publicly announced competition. However, no information about such a competition was found on the HQCJ website, and the practices of that period had previously been criticized by the Public Integrity Council. 

Kytsiuk said she learned about the vacancy by comparing information on judges’ resignations and transfers. She also said that a competence review “apparently took place,” but did not provide detailed circumstances. According to her, there were four candidates for four vacancies and all were appointed. The PCIE member noted inconsistencies in her explanations regarding the nature of that check.

The interview also discussed a 2017 incident with patrol police. Kytsiuk said she does not believe she violated traffic rules and tried not to escalate the conflict. She acknowledged that she may have lacked communication skills and psychological knowledge but said she had no intention of creating a confrontation.

Oleksii Yevtushenko 

Judge, Saksahanskyi District Court

Yevtushenko’s interview began with discussion of his practical experience, including his handling of corruption-related cases. He said he does not find corruption cases difficult; for him, cases affecting people’s lives are more difficult.

PCIE asked about the privatization of a one-room apartment in Kharkiv in 2013. The experts did not understand how the candidate managed to privatize the apartment within only one year of filing an application. At the time, Yevtushenko was the chief of staff of the Kharkiv Region Court of Appeal, and PCIE found that the apartment was allocated to him by the Kharkiv City Council as an exception. It was not official housing; he applied under the general procedure used by citizens seeking housing. 

The candidate was unable to recall, even in broad terms, what the “exception” was. He said he tried to obtain documents on the City Council’s decision-making procedure, but they had been destroyed after the retention period expired. He also said he learned only in 2026 that the apartment had been granted as an exception.

PCIE noted that the City Council reviewed the decision to transfer the apartment within one month—an unusually fast timeline. Yevtushenko again said he does not know why his application was reviewed so quickly, adding: “Honestly, when I applied, getting an apartment felt like winning the lottery,” and “I simply got lucky—it’s a real pity I can’t prove it.”

At the time he received the apartment, the candidate also held an ownership share in property in Chernihiv. Because of this, he said, he had to personally pay part of the privatized apartment’s value. In 2025, he sold the apartment, but said he did not intend to profit, because he used the proceeds to purchase property in his mother’s hometown. 

The interview also covered a lawsuit against Kharkiv heating utilities in which the candidate was represented by his wife’s law firm. The court ordered reimbursement to Judge Yevtushenko of UAH 5,000 in legal fees. The candidate confirmed that he did in fact transfer those funds as payment to his wife’s company.

Yevtushenko also apologized for a remark he made during the interview addressed to a member of the High Council of Justice, saying that he always pays child support and that “that is the nature of a Ukrainian woman—she always pursues child support for herself.” He said the remark may have been inappropriate and that he meant something else.

HQCJ also asked about the candidate’s mobilization history. In March 2022, he contacted the Verkhovyna Center for Territorial Recruitment and began service, including in the Military Law Enforcement Service. His service lasted four months, and the panel sought clarification as to why he joined the military and whether it was intended to obtain a particular status.

On a professional question about a recent Constitutional Court decision concerning detention during martial law, the candidate was unable to say what the decision was about.

Overall, Yevtushenko appeared nervous during the interview and frequently interrupted commission members, for which he received warnings.

Lesia Skreklia

Associate Professor, Lviv University of Trade and Economics

The interview began with a discussion of the candidate’s motivation to work at HACC. Skreklia said she views administering justice at HACC as the peak of the legal profession and described the court as a “court of justice” that, together with Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure, can realistically reduce corruption in the country.

PCIE then asked about her husband, an investigator who won a competition for the State Bureau of Investigation in 2018. The panel asked whether she saw a risk of a conflict of interest, given that the SBI also investigates high-level corruption cases. Skreklia replied that she and her husband share the same values, so there can be no pressure; moreover, she said she would not allow it.

A substantial part of the interview was about her academic work. Experts noted similarities between her dissertation and the work of another scholar. Skreklia said she and the colleague worked simultaneously, had the same academic supervisor—Professor Viacheslav Navrotskyi—and used similar methodology. She stressed that her dissertation abstract and an article on the topic were published earlier, even though the colleague defended first. She also said the colleague asked her for the dissertation text to review. Skreklia denied violating academic integrity rules, but acknowledged that sharing her dissertation with the colleague was a mistake and said she would treat it as a lesson.

PCIE then asked about the family’s financial situation. Skreklia said she lives in her parents’ apartment in Lviv, purchased in 2016 for UAH 1.3 million. According to her, her parents earned those funds while working in Russia in the 2000s.

She also described the purchase of an apartment in Kyiv for UAH 3.7 million in 2026. She said the family had saved for 13 years and previously did not own housing. The apartment is still under construction, and the couple does not rule out selling it in the future in order to buy housing in Lviv.

In 2021, Skreklia’s husband purchased a damaged car from the United States for $9,500, and the family spent a total of $16,500 on repairs. Skreklia said the family could afford this because her husband earns a high salary.

HQCJ pointed to several inaccuracies in her declarations. Skreklia confirmed that the listed price of a parking space contained a typo (UAH 120,000). She explained differences in the dates of acquiring a share in an apartment in her and her husband’s declarations as her husband’s carelessness. She also said she unintentionally failed to report her right to practice law because she completed that section mechanically.

HQCJ also noted that in the declaration of the value of her parents’ apartment in Lviv, Skreklia selected “not applicable.” She said this was due to inexperience in completing the forms and stressed that she had no intent to conceal anything.

HQCJ further noted errors in her family ties declaration and her integrity declaration: she listed all relatives without distinction and completed the document only for 2024, even though it was required for her entire life period. Skreklia said she was unaware of the requirement. 

The commission also noted that in her questionnaire she stated she had not participated in competitions, even though she is currently undergoing selection for local courts. Skreklia acknowledged that this was another mistake.

The commission also asked about sources of the family’s savings reported in her 2018–2019 declarations. Skreklia said she saved all of her own income, while the family lived on her husband’s earnings.

In closing, the commission expressed doubts about the unusually large number of her co-authored scholarly publications, which is atypical for legal research. Skreklia said such co-authorship reflected academic exchange and was not intended to artificially inflate her publication count.

Nataliia Makhno

Judge, Kolomyia City District Court, Ivano-Frankivsk Region

During the interview, some questions concerned the family’s finances, including her father’s work abroad. A PCIE member noted that her father had worked in France and asked about the type of work and income level. Makhno said her father was officially employed as a worker and, in her words, earned up to €2,000 per month; she added that before France he also worked in other countries.

The interview also discussed the construction of a residential house of about 140 m², built roughly 30 years ago. Makhno said it was built “by the artisanal method,” meaning by the family’s own efforts. Asked about subsequent renovations, she confirmed that repairs were made but was unable to estimate the approximate costs.

PCIE examined in detail Makhno’s purchase of a 2008 HYUNDAI ACCENT in 2017 for UAH 48,744. PCIE questioned whether the vehicle’s value may have been understated given market prices. Makhno said the car required repairs and that she used her personal salary savings to buy it. A PCIE member noted that documentation of the repairs was provided only partially. One HQCJ member remarked that at such a price it might have been more profitable for the prior owner to sell the car as scrap, which further increased doubts about whether the stated price was realistic.

A separate block of questions concerned her academic track: the commission asked why she changed both her academic supervisor and her institution. Makhno said the first institution could not form a specialized academic council due to the lack of relevant scholars, and that most of the research had already been completed by the time she transferred. At the same time, an HQCJ member pointed out that the first institution had issued a conclusion with reservations about the work’s readiness and that by the end of her doctoral studies the research had not been completed in full. This raised doubts about the consistency of her explanation for changing institutions. Another HQCJ member also noted that in those years the first institution hosted defenses on similar topics, which further undermined the claim that it was impossible to form a specialized council. 

The interview also addressed Makhno’s integrity declaration. She said she had not been held liable. During the interview, however, she confirmed that a traffic ticket had been issued against her and that she challenged it; the higher authority later overturned it for lack of an offense.

Oleksandr Vernyhor

Attorney

During the interview, PCIE paid particular attention to the candidate’s business model. In 2024, he received most of his income through his individual entrepreneur status, which is taxed at a lower rate, while income from his independent professional activity as an attorney accounted for only about 20% of his total annual income. Vernyhor said he has the right to choose the format under which he provides services and that the law does not prohibit this. He explained that he received funds as an attorney only when a client insisted on signing a legal services agreement specifically with him in his capacity as an attorney. In other cases, he signed contracts as an individual entrepreneur, which prompted extensive questions from PCIE members.

Health-related issues, which form the basis for the candidate’s deferment from mobilization, were discussed in a closed session.

The panel also reviewed questions of Vernyhor’s tax compliance, noting that enforcement proceedings were opened against him for nonpayment of the unified social contribution. Vernyhor described this as an accounting error in his 2020 reporting (during the COVID-19 pandemic there were temporary USC payment relief measures), which the tax authority did not allow him to correct. A court ultimately upheld the tax authority’s position; Vernyhor did not appeal further and paid the assessed amounts.

HQCJ was interested in the candidate’s successful track record of challenging tax authority decisions through the administrative (out-of-court) appeal procedure, especially given his prior work in the tax service. Because such complaints have a low success rate in Ukraine, the commission asked what explained his results. Vernyhor said he simply prepared strong legal reasoning against decisions that were plainly unlawful, and he categorically denied exerting any influence on former colleagues.

As for potential ties to the Nash Krai party, election commission data listed Vernyhor as a member of an election commission nominated by that party (his full name and taxpayer number matched). The candidate said he had never served on such a commission and had not participated in elections at all, suggesting he may have been added to lists by mistake without his knowledge.